Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.

Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.

Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy.

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. I guess I just don't see it as clever or original to use these well worn puns. I'd rather see something original even if the attempt at being funny or clever failed, or a cogent argument as to why they are scummy, copyists.

Samsunk anyone?

OK, the first time, it's funny. But when it is systematically repeated, it becomes boring.

Obviously the jury didn't fall for Samsung's complete over simplification. This was about a lot more than "rounded rectangles". Samsung's lawyers aren't that obtuse but they were assuming the jury was. They assumed wrong.

Yes it is a loss for companies that are not creative and need to steal other companies designs and intellectual property in order to try to compete in the tech industry. It's just a crying shame that they now have to pay. I'm really going to lose sleep over this.

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

Incorrect. Apple could have made someone else make ARM chips and other components for them. There might be some sacrifices, but they'd have access to the same alternatives as everyone else. And Apple could certainly exist even if the iPhone and iPad had never been created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac512

I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?

That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense

They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamewing

Can I upgrade my 3GS and 4 to a version of iOS that has all the new bells and whistles? I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?

Well, yes. iOS 5.1.1 runs just fine on a 3GS:http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20069641-1/how-well-does-ios-5-run-on-iphone-3gs/
"We've been running iOS5 on a iPhone 3GS for the last 24 hours and have had no problems with it. It runs smoothly and the experience doesn't seem noticeably different from running iOS4. We'll let you know if we encounter any bugs as they come along, but for now it seems safe to say iOS5 works fine on the 3GS."

Now, there might be a few features that won't run due to the age of the hardware, but iOS 5 runs just fine on a 3GS-and that hardware is several years old.

In contrast, even a brand new Android phone may never run even today's version of Android, much less future versions.

Thanks for proving the point.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.

The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.

I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.

The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?

That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense

They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.

"We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims," Ilagan said. "That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. Its not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that."

I agree with you in this case. I made this comment when the first few comments had come in and they were a little bit over the top with the "Ha Ha we won" attitude. I do think Apple has a lot more time to plan what to do and the people in charge there seem to be doing better than I could. I really just wanted to get the point across that Apple and Samsung remain business partners for a reason. Samsung does have the ability to produce top quality when they are making components, and they do not reap anywhere near the kind of income from their IP that Apple does for what they do. In the comment section of another article here there are a couple of people arguing that Samsung is run by a Dr Evil type of management team. I believe the situation is more complex then this, but it is a meme that seems to fit the cultural situation. I do think the level of support for IP shown in our culture is important, but it is clearly not the only way things are done.

I have a business which is franchising in Seoul Korea and I can say that trust is the big problem in international business deals. We do not really have any evidence that we will continue to receive the royalty checks we are due. We did get a small first check and the business is struggling to adapt to the local culture. The problem is that we are not getting any sales reports to compare the income to. This is not a small matter. It is much harder to trust someone who is unwilling to document their work. As is evident in this trial, documentation of work is taken as risky by the Korean business culture. What are you hiding if you don't want your work documented?

I think Apple understands that this is no simple case of just copying on one level, but on another, they simply want Samsung to recognize where they are out of line. It is really doubtful that Samsung is really going to get the message from this one case. I think that it is going to take time before Apple and Samsung can settle this case. It is telling that Apple's pretrial settlement price was about 20% cheaper than the jury verdict. The longer Samsung fights to defend copying this obvious, the more this is going to cost them.

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

It is my understanding that Apple is reliant on Samsung for several patents that are necessary for the production of the ARM chips used in the iPad and IPhone. I will admit I do not have the source for this, but it stands to reason that there are patents used by each foundry which make the necessary yield of top quality chips possible. The technology that is necessary to create chips on the 32 nm node is so specific that Intel could not use another foundry to produce their chips even if they wanted to, without redesigning and optimizing the final chip tape out.

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

Its ok, you don't have to put your big boy pants on just yet, its still fresh and new, I know one day it will be all better, Samsung will appeal, rectangles, innovation, anticompetition, I know sweetie, I know...

As much as I prefer their design and engineering abilities in the world of TV, I still had to join a class action suit to be reimbursed for repairs prompted by their use of out-of-date, crap capacitors in my current set.

CSR's lied, avoided answers, denied the problem for a coupleof years until a response was forced in court.

Samsung is right in that is a loss for consumers, "who always want something for nothing". Those of us who consume to produce understand and appreciate quality and are willing to pay for it. I certainly never liked having my work ripped off and it being credited to others -- happened too many times. Giving credit where it is due; that is all that is required.

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.

Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.

No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.

Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?

No problem, I see it right that companies copy each other, because they'll copy each other anyway (they exchange patents like if it was a cards game). I said the patents system no longer protects the one with low resources, and that's what I think. Don't lose the time with this supposedly war, which is no war, nor justice, it's just a cards game. They're playing poker, that's it.

The problem here is that they can play poker, but any independent developer wishing to use any patented technology cannot enter the game.

No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.

Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?

No, it's still racist.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)

But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.

This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)

Adoption by Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the AppleMacintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]

Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]

However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]

The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.

Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)

But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.

This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)

You're right, point taken.

What kind of innovations in technology have we seen from Korean companies thus far?

When I walk into a Korean supermarket their packaging looks awfully identical to the Japanese and their cars (Hyundai Genesis coupe and Infiniti G37),

Their written language is a good example. They wanted to separate themselves from the Chinese. I don't understand when it comes to technology and automotive why can't Korean companies make the same separation.

This is the part everyone misses. Apple sues to prevent commoditization of their products. If The iPhone can be flagrantly copied then Apple can be beat on price and they lose. Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.

Originally Posted by mike_t
Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.

When's that gonna happen, by the way? They threw eMachines into bankruptcy when they stole the iMac design; why haven't we heard anything about throwing every PC manufacturer into bankruptcy for stealing the MacBook Air design?

And Intel needs punished for claiming they're the ones that came up with this idea.